Quantum theory is wrong.

A word in your ear ^ | March 7th 2013 | Mark

[ABrit]

Particles do not retain "information", don't have "knowledge". It is not that the act of observation that alters reality. In fact the physical nature of the "observation" small though it may be is sufficient to alter the metrics of sub atomic particles.

[mnehring]

It looks like the blog author forgot to put down his equations and controlled experiments that prove his point.

[Da Coyote]

Indeed, the words of the Copenhagen group are hard to understand. But - the math is not. And the math works...to better than one part in literally billions.

So, please back up your “interpretations” with math.

Words alone are worth about as much as emanations of your typical politician.

[Bobalu]

He’s an idiot.

See Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.

Quantum mechanics is very strange but has been confirmed in many experiments.

[Heartlander]

F > P

[ZX12R]

For someone making such a claim, he didn’t really say much, or go into much detail.

[count-your-change]

Observation does change the thing being observed. Put a camera on a crowd snd see how many start saying , “Hi Mom!”, even if Mom has been gone for years. And a camera will convince many they actually have enough talent to perform against the obvious proof they do not.

The math: Camera + Idiots = Buffoonery (C+I=B>)

[mnehring]

Let's start with the basics, what mathematical errors has the author found with the Schrodinger's Equation?

After the author can explain this, we can get into the real difficult stuff.

[I want the USA back]

Too short, not enough information, but essentially right.

[Fighting Irish]

[ZX12R]

I’m still holding out for a “hidden variables” type of explanation, to understand the oddities of quantum behavior.

[mosaicwolf]

I say nothing is real. Everything is an illusion; a projection of the mind. (Read: Ego) Math to back it up? Don’t need that pesky mathematics when one knows. :-)

[Pecos]

His "out" is that he says it would take instruments far in advanced of today's technology to be able to prove his point - which means he cannot, or at least has not, been able to prove his point mathematically. The essence of his problem may lie in his own self-contradictory statements, to wit,

"It is not that the act of observation that alters reality. In fact the physical nature of the "observation" small though it may be is sufficient to alter the metrics of sub atomic particles."

If someone can point out the practical difference between a physical act of observation and the fact that an observation has physical impact, I would appreciate it.

[KarlInOhio]

That cat just agrees because he's scheduled to be the next one in the box to test quantum superposition.

[ZX12R]

I say nothing is real.

In a way, that is essentially what the copenhagen interpretation says. That there is no deep reality, at least not one that human beings could understand. Everything exists on a cloud of potentials, which is not a real thing.

[mnehring]

[pgkdan]

I don’t know anything about Schrdinger’s equation...but thatnks to Sheldon and Penny I do know about Schrodinger’s cat!

[MotorCityBuck]

Lol!

[Rebel_Ace]

"It is not that the act of observation that alters reality. In fact the physical nature of the "observation" small though it may be is sufficient to alter the metrics of sub atomic particles."

"...If someone can point out the practical difference between a physical act of observation and the fact that an observation has physical impact, I would appreciate it..."

Here is what I think he is trying to "split hairs" about if you will. Let's say I want to look at something with my eyes. Well, I am going to have to bounce a photon off it, so it can reflect into my eye. That is the "physical act".

Now, what I think he is trying to get at is the "metaphysical" aspect of "understanding" the observation.

It really is just the old "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" kind of thing.

I am NOT supporting his position, just trying to make sense of it. I am really more of an experiment and math guy.

[dirtboy]

[SgtHooper]

No longer a requirement. All that’s needed is a “feeling”.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“Hey! If you’re gonna violate causality, take it outside!,” says the bartender.

“Thanks,” it says, taking money from the bartender before giving him a beer and a shot.

It says to the bartender, “If that’s my wife, tell her I’m not here!”

The phone rings.

A tachyon enters a bar.

A physics joke.

[Durus]

I observe a baseball being thrown. The photons bouncing off of this object are the same photons that would be bouncing off the ball regardless of if I was watching the ball or not. Hence my observation or lack of observation does not effect the ball.

If a tree falls in the woods the mass of the tree will strike the ground causing noise, regardless of their being an observer there or not.

[Yardstick]

But as you were moving into position with your camera you startled a bird who flew up into the tree and ever so slightly altered the direction that it fell.

[Rebel_Ace]

"I observe a baseball being thrown. The photons bouncing off of this object are the same photons that would be bouncing off the ball regardless of if I was watching the ball or not. Hence my observation or lack of observation does not effect the ball.

If a tree falls in the woods the mass of the tree will strike the ground causing noise, regardless of their being an observer there or not "

You have no argument from me. Like I said in my post, I was NOT supporting his argument, just trying to understand what he was putting out there.

[Rebel_Ace]

I laughed at the tachyon joke yesterday.

[ZX12R]

Switch the baseball and the tree for subatomic particles, and things change.

[Durus]

It is unlikely that the asmostpheric disturbance of bird wings would overcome any other atmospheric conditions which already exist. Regardless it would seem that you are already changing the thought experiment with additional parameters. The simple fact is that not all observations change what is being observed.

[Durus]

Perhaps and perhaps not. Both a baseball and a tree are made up of subatomic particles after all.

[ZX12R]

Perhaps and perhaps not. Both a baseball and a tree are made up of subatomic particles after all.

Ultimately, yes, I suppose you could say they are, but subatomic particles behave nothing like our classical world of objects, like trees and baseballs.

[Paco]

So what are we? Figments of each others imagination? If so, how is it possible for figments to interact? Is imagination made up of sub-atomic particles? Are these stupid questions? If so, did I ask them?

[ZX12R]

So what are we? Figments of each others imagination? If so, how is it possible for figments to interact? Is imagination made up of sub-atomic particles? Are these stupid questions? If so, did I ask them?

Your questions are not so far out there, when talking about the strangeness of the quantum world. The truth is, no one really knows the answers, and most physicists don't think about them anymore. Most of them just jump on the copenhagan bandwagon, due to consensus, and plow forward with the theory that really does work, and has never failed.

[Durus]

Nothing like? I'm not sure that I would agree with that statement. Not that either of us could prove how sub-atomic particles really act.

[Durus]

No we are not products of thought or imagination. We are not spun out of some collective conscience. Physics don't work simply because we believe it. This is very a humanistic way to view creation. The universe existed before humans and the world would keep spinning around the sun if we were to kill our species. The laws of physics are independent of our and any observation.
Ironically this theory is made from the imagination of people trying to argue against the very concept of reason which is the only thing that allows us to meaningfully communicate.

[ZX12R]

Nothing like? I'm not sure that I would agree with that statement. Not that either of us could prove how sub-atomic particles really act.

If you fire electrons one at a time, at a screen which is able to record the impacts, and also has an intervening screen between the two, that has two appropriately sized slits, you would be able to see the individual impacts, and over time you would also begin to see an interference pattern in the impact locations, thereby seeing both the particle aspect of electrons, and the wave aspect of electrons. Its hard to imagine how the interference pattern can emerge when you are firing one electron at a time, unless each individual electron is somehow interfering with itself, but it does. Now, do you think you could produce the same pattern with the same screens (larger and stronger) but with a machine gun firing bullets one at a time? It's impossible, because the classical world that we live and experience in, is nothing like the quantum world.

[Durus]

I'm not sure that particle wave duality is an example of how "the quantum world is nothing like the classic world" as much as it is an example of a difference.

Regardless my point is that there are those that suggest that because observation changes the observed that there are things that are ultimately unknowable. I reject this concept and it related philosophies.

[Paco]

I’m waaaay out of my league on this topic, but a quick question. Is it possible that the answers to the unknown defy logic and our ability to even understand them?

[Paco]

I’m waaaay out of my league on this topic, but a quick question. Is it possible that the answers to the unknown defy logic and our ability to even understand them?

[Durus]

The answers to the unknown always defy logic and our understanding until we have enough information and apply reason. This is the way it always has been.

[discostu]

But if you weren’t there to watch the pitch those photons would have landed somewhere else, resulting possibly in something else.

It’s the photon wave particle experiment that actually proves observation changes results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
because the results change depending on how you chose to observe.

[ZX12R]

It’s the photon wave particle experiment that actually proves observation changes results:

That's exactly correct. In the double slit experiment I described above, attempts to monitor which slit the electron actually travels through, makes the interference pattern disappear. The act of observing changes the results.

What that means precisely, no one knows. That's why there have been several serious interpretations, of which the copenhagen interpretation is only one, and is the consensus among most physicists, but mostly because the others are even kookeir that that. Many worlds theory, hidden variables, etc.

[djf]

I believe Bell proved there is no hidden variable theory that matches quantum predictions.

[ZX12R]

The answers to the unknown always defy logic and our understanding until we have enough information and apply reason. This is the way it always has been.

The brightest minds have been struggling with this for close to a hundred years now, and have hit a brick wall in terms of applying reason. I wouldn't state it with as much certainty as you have, but I mostly tend to agree with you that reason might eventually crack the understanding of the strange goings on. There is also more than just the wave/particle dilema that defies logic and therefore understanding.

[discostu]

My takeaway has always been that the world is a lot weirder than we want.

[ZX12R]

I’m waaaay out of my league on this topic, but a quick question. Is it possible that the answers to the unknown defy logic and our ability to even understand them

Yes, until it is understood, anything is possible. In fact, it is one of interpretations put forward. That the quantum world follows a type of non-human logic that we may learn to understand, or may never be able to understand.

[ZX12R]

I believe Bell proved there is no hidden variable theory that matches quantum predictions.

As I understand it, that's correct, but I'm an old fashion type like Durus, who believes we will prevail eventually. Also, Einstein believed that QM was incomplete and there were hidden variables to explain it. His opinion is pretty difficult to simply disregard.
Bell's theorem also seems to prove that any explanation of quantum behavior has to include non local faster than light communication.

[djf]

Correct.
I have Bell’s “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” and surprisingly, actually understand alot of it!

He was a brilliant guy. To find the things he did and not lose his mind in the process must have been quite a challenge!

And, of course, the Aspect experiments proving most of his predictions.

[ZX12R]

You would have to be brilliant and very well educated to actually work with these kinds of things. I however am just an average Joe that finds all these mysteries really fascinating, and have read a lot about it over the years, but I actually understand very little. I keep saying to myself, “how can it be that way?”

[Cboldt]

-- Regardless my point is that there are those that suggest that because observation changes the observed that there are things that are ultimately unknowable. --

Quantum mechanics just says that what is knowable, is probabilities; and that certainty (or near certainty) in one atomic/quantum (small) observation makes for much uncertainty in another.

Many of the issues that people have with quantum mechanics have their roots in the thought experiment explanations. Action on a small scale defies being described in terms that reflect our ability to intuit. "Wave / Particle duality" being one such thought experiment, Schroedinger's cat being another.

[Durus]

It wouldn’t matter to the ball if I was there to intercept photons that already contacted the ball.